1: \begin{abstract}
2: Is there any hope for quantum
3: computing to challenge the Turing barrier, i.e. to solve an undecidable
4: problem, to compute an uncomputable function? According to Feynman's '82
5: argument, the answer is {\it negative}.
6: This paper re-opens the case: we will discuss solutions to a few simple
7: problems which
8: suggest that {\it quantum computing is {\it theoretically}
9: capable of
10: computing uncomputable functions}.
11:
12: Turing proved that there is no ``halting (Turing) machine"
13: capable of distinguishing between halting and non-halting programs (undecidability of the Halting Problem). Halting
14: programs can be recognized by simply running them; the main difficulty is to
15: detect non-halting programs. In this paper a mathematical quantum ``device" (with sensitivity $\varepsilon$) is constructed to solve the Halting Problem.
16: The ``device" works on a randomly chosen test-vector for $T$ units of time.
17: If the ``device" produces a click, then the program halts.
18: If it does not produce a click, then either the program does not halt
19: or the test-vector has been chosen from an {\it undistinguishable
20: set of vectors} ${\IF}_{\varepsilon, T}$. The last case is not dangerous as
21: our main result proves: {\it the Wiener measure of} ${\IF}_{\varepsilon, T}$ {\it constructively tends to zero when} $T$ {\it tends to infinity}. The ``device", working in time $T$, appropriately
22: computed, will determine
23: with a pre-established precision whether an arbitrary program halts or not. {\it Building the ``halting machine" is mathematically possible.}
24:
25: To construct our ``device" we use the quadratic form of an iterated map (encoding the whole data in an infinite superposition) acting on randomly chosen vectors viewed as special trajectories of two Markov processes working in two different scales of time. The evolution is described by an unbounded, exponentially growing
26: semigroup; finally a single measurement produces the result.
27:
28: \end{abstract}
29: